Attorney Grievance Commission v. Frost
437 Md. 245
| Md. | 2014Background
- Petitioner filed a disciplinary action against James Frost alleging violations of MLRPC 8.1, 8.2, and 8.4 after Frost failed to respond to discovery and participated minimally in the proceedings.
- An order of default was entered against Frost for failure to answer, and a hearing on the merits was held with Frost absent.
- Hearing Judge Harris found by clear and convincing evidence that Frost made false, inflammatory statements about several judges and public officers in an email, and that these statements violated Rules 8.1(b), 8.2(a), and 8.4.
- The Maryland Court of Appeals reviewed de novo, with no exceptions filed to the findings of fact, and upheld the conclusions of law.
- The court rejected Frost’s First Amendment contention as a defense to Rule 8.2(a) violations and imposed disbarment as sanction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Frost violated Rule 8.1(b) | Bar Counsel: Frost failed to respond to lawful information requests. | Frost: lack of response should not equate to misconduct under 8.1(b). | Yes; 8.1(b) violation established |
| Whether Frost violated Rule 8.2(a) by statements about judges and public officers | Bar Counsel: statements were false or made with reckless disregard and impugned integrity. | Frost: statements protected by First Amendment; not a 8.2(a) violation. | Yes; five statements violated 8.2(a); not protected by First Amendment for this context |
| Whether Frost violated Rule 8.4(a), (c), and (d) based on the 8.2(a) findings | Bar Counsel: conduct showed deceit and prejudiced administration of justice. | Frost: not argued; arguments focus on 8.2(a). | Yes; violations established |
| Appropriate sanction for Frost's misconduct | Disbarment justified given repeated false statements and noncooperation. | Disbarment excessive; potential suspension and readmission with conditions. | Disbarment warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. DeMaio, 379 Md. 571 (Md. 2004) (false, spurious representations prejudicing justice; nonparticipation supports discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Hermina, 379 Md. 503 (Md. 2004) (false, inflammatory allegations about judges; improper external communications)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. DeLa Paz, 418 Md. 534 (Md. 2011) (deemed admissions and conduct; standards for evaluating discipline)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. McClain, 406 Md. 1 (Md. 2008) (misconduct involving improper statements about a judge; 8.2(a) context)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gansler, 377 Md. 656 (Md. 2003) (extrajudicial statements; scope of speech restrictions for lawyers)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Gore, 380 Md. 455 (Md. 2004) (sanctions framework; public confidence and protection of the profession)
- Attorney Grievance Comm'n v. Stein, 373 Md. 531 (Md. 2003) (sanctions and public protection considerations)
- Maryland v. Kremer, 432 Md. 325 (Md. 2013) (Court reviewed findings for correctness; exceptions impact sanctions)
- In re Evans, 801 F.2d 703 (4th Cir. 1986) (First Amendment limits in attorney discipline contexts)